ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has released the dissenting note of Justice Jamal Mandokhail and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan in the case regarding civilian trials in military courts.
In their dissenting note, both judges stated that the claim that military courts are established globally to deal with terrorism cases is incorrect.
While it is true that the conviction rate in ordinary criminal courts is low, it does not imply that these courts lack the capability or desire to deliver justice.
The note further mentioned that the Supreme Court continuously reviews the decisions of lower courts.
Judicial observation has revealed that most acquittals occur in baseless political cases, which are often the result of unprofessional investigations and weak prosecutions.
The dissenting note also highlighted that intra-court appeals were filed by the federal, Punjab, and Balochistan governments. It appears, unfortunately, that these governments have lost confidence in criminal courts.
Regrettably, these elected governments have withdrawn their trust from the criminal justice system.
The judges wrote that these governments have shifted the burden of resolving frivolous and politically motivated cases onto military courts, which is incomprehensible. The military officers who preside over military courts are experts in military affairs.
The note also pointed out that these officers lack judicial experience and are not trained to deal with civil cases. Military courts cannot be equated with the regular judicial system. Judges in ordinary courts possess both judicial experience and independence.
The judges further stated that instead of understanding terrorism-related cases, federal and provincial governments are relying on military courts to serve their own purposes. Expecting ordinary criminal courts to convict individuals without evidence would be a violation of the right to a fair trial. When the prosecution lacks evidence or material, how can a military court deliver a sentence?
